Access Denied Rising Selectivity At California S Public Universities

ACCESS DENIED
November 2015
Rising Selectivity at
California’s Public Universities

Executive Summary
Introduction
The Role of State Funding in Shaping College
Opportunity in California
Higher Education in California: A Brief Overview
Admission to the University of California
Admission to the California State University
How the Structure of California’s Public Four-Year
Universities is Impacting Admissions and Enrollment
Conclusion
Policy Implications and Recommendations
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Acknowledgments
Endnotes
Infographic Notes & Sources
Table of Contents
03
04
05
10
14
20
32
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
44
45

Access Denied: Rising Selectivity at California’s Public Universities 3
The value of a college degree in the 21st century has never
been higher. More Californians are prepared for college and
want to go, yet our public universities cannot accommodate
all of the eligible students and the state has failed to invest
the resources necessary to expand college access to keep
pace with demand.
In response to the mismatch between student and workforce
demand and a shortage of college seats in California’s public
universities, our research seeks to provide a clearer picture
of admissions standards, capacity challenges, and the role
of state funding and policy priorities in Sacramento on the
University of California (UC) and California State University
(CSU) systems. We are especially concerned with the impact
of increased competition faced by California students today
on our ability to produce the college graduates we need.
At a time when an educated workforce is crucial for the
California economy, is it fair that it is more dificult for
today’s generation of Californians to enroll directly in
a four-year university after high school than it was for
previous generations?
Key Findings:
• California has experienced rapid population growth
(265 percent since 1950) and is younger than most
other states, creating pressure to accommodate more
students seeking a college education.
• High school graduates today are better prepared (42
percent of high school graduates in 2013 completed
A-G courses required for UC and CSU eligibility, up from
36 percent in 1996), yet as a whole are less educated
than the Baby Boomers who will be rapidly leaving the
workforce.
• The gap between the number of Californians applying to
the UC and those admitted has doubled since 1996. This
is also true in the CSU.
• Those who wish to attend the UC must have near
perfect grades and scores to get in, something we did
not expect of previous generations. Today the average
weighted GPA is 3.90 and the median SAT score is 1840
for students admitted to the UC. Freshman students
admitted to six of the nine UC campuses in 2014 had an
average weighted GPA of over a 4.0.
• Between 2009 and 2014, budget cuts and limited space
have forced the CSU to turn away 139,697 eligible
California students.
• At the CSU, six of 23 campuses have raised admission
standards for all applicants through the use of impaction,
and within the CSU system impacted majors that require
students to meet a higher GPA and/or SAT score have
increased by 135 percent since 2004.
• California ranks 49th among states in the percentage
of undergraduate students enrolled in a four-year
university (public or private not-for-proit).
• Between 2003-2010, California’s prison population
increased by only one percent, while general fund
expenditures on corrections increased by 26 percent.
During the same period, UC and CSU enrollment
increased by 13 percent, while general expenditures for
higher education decreased by 9 percent.
• As state funding has decreased, tuition has increased
by almost 200 percent in the UC and over 175 percent in
the CSU since 2000.
When our four-year public university system cannot
serve all qualiied California students, we produce fewer
bachelor’s degree holders and ultimately hurt the economy
and threaten the future of our state.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 Access Denied: Rising Selectivity at California’s Public Universities
While the value of a college degree has increased over time,
the percent of California’s population with a college degree
is decreasing. In fact, today’s generation of Californians is
on track to be less educated than previous generations.1
A college degree is a game changer. Having a bachelor’s
degree beneits Californians in a number of ways, including
decreasing their likelihood of being unemployed, signiicantly
increasing their lifetime earnings, and reducing their reliance
on the state’s safety net.2
The state of California also beneits
from a college-educated citizenry by reaping lifetime tax
beneits of over $100,000 per person who has earned a
bachelor’s degree and saving over $10,000 per person due
to reduced time spent in poverty.3
California ranks 45th in the nation in terms of bachelor’s
degree completion within its college-age population. Several
reasons limit our ability to produce more college graduates:
(1) California’s four-year university systems are simply too
small to serve the growing college-age population,4
(2) the
1960 Master Plan eligibility caps limit enrollment to the top
thirdofhighschoolgraduates,(3)statefundingisinsuficient,
and (4) growing demand from both students and employers
are increasing competition as more students understand the
value of a college degree. California is facing considerable
challenges when it comes to ensuring all eligible students
have a spot in public four-year institutions and is in danger
of not meeting workforce demand and losing out on the
societal beneits that come along with an educated citizenry.
Introduction
Why is it harder for students today to access California’s
public university system?
Master Plan Cap
on Four-Year
Enrollment
Growth in
California’s College-
Age Population
Limited
Physical Space on
Campuses
Insuficient State
Funding
Increase in Number
of College Applicants
and Applications
Increase in Demand
for a College Degree
by Both Students
and Employers

State funding and policy priorities are one of the most
signiicant determinants in shaping the number of
Californians who could attend the UC or the CSU. Over
the past several decades, the UC and CSU have received a
steadily declining portion from the state budget. Decreased
funding from the state has created challenges for the UC
and CSU systems in serving the growing number of students
enrolling in California’s public universities. For example, in
2002, the CSU system faced budget cuts that left more
than 8,000 CSU students unfunded by the state.5
Decreased
funding has worsened after the Great Recession, where in
the years immediately following the crisis, state funding was
reduced by over $1 billion—or roughly 25 percent—for each
of the public universities systems (UC and CSU each) when
adjusted for inflation (as seen in Figure 1). The UC system
reported that in 2014 these reductions continued to leave
approximately 7,000 California resident students unfunded
by the state.6
Although demand for California’s public four-
year institutions has steadily increased over time, state
spending per student has followed the opposite trajectory
and remains near its lowest point in more than 30 years.7
Reductions in state funding are also affecting students,
as tuition has increased in years where state funding for
public universities has decreased (see igure 2).
THE ROLE OF STATE FUNDING IN
SHAPING College Opportunity in
California
Figure 1: State appropriations for the CSU are down 26 percent
since 2007-08
State of California Annual Higher Education Appropriations, 2007-08 to 2015-16
(adjusted for inlation, 2015 dollars)
Source: California
Department of Finance8
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
$4,032,012
$4,324,466
UC: $3,236,182
CSU: $2,994,655
dollars
in
thousands

Figure 2: As state funding decreases, tuition increases at California’s
public universities
Tuition at UC and CSU Compared to Total State Funding for Both Systems, 2000-01 to 2015-16 (adjusted for
inlation, 2015 dollars)
dollars
in
thousands
$0
$4,000
$8,000
$12,000
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
$1,972
$3,751
UC: $11,160
CSU: $5,472
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,046,714
State Funding:
$6,230,837
dollars
in
thousands
Sources: Legislative Analyst Ofice and the California Department of Finance9
Budget cuts have played a signiicant role in limiting
enrollment in the UC and CSU and, as a result, have
influenced the competitiveness of the admissions pool. For
example, in 2004, the UC system admitted a historically low
percentage of eligible students due to the elimination of
funding for enrollment growth that year.10
It should be noted
that these denied students were given a guaranteed transfer
option after completing lower-division course requirements
at a California community college. Due to diminished state
funding following the inancial crisis in 2008, UC campuses
began to limit the number of admitted California residents
and signiicantly increased the number of admitted
international and out-of-state students in order to boost
tuition revenue.11
Similarly, the funding shortfalls prompted
CSU campuses to turn away as many as 28,000 eligible
students per year, including community college transfer
students.12
These budget cuts are particularly troubling when
juxtaposed alongside budget items that increased during
the same time period, such as corrections. More stunning
is the fact that between 2003-2010, California’s prison
population increased by only one percent, but general
fund expenditures on corrections increased by 26 percent.
During the same period, UC and CSU enrollment increased
by 13 percent, while general expenditures for higher
education decreased by 9 percent.13
Thankfully, the past three state budgets have provided
increases in state funding for the UC and CSU—although still
not anywhere near pre-2007 funding levels after adjusting
for inflation. Both the general recovery of the state economy
and the passage of Proposition 30 in 2012, which temporarily
raised tax rates to help prevent more than $5 billion in
education cuts, have contributed to annual increases in
General Fund allocations for higher education since 2012.
Subsequently, in 2013 Governor Brown committed to a
multi-year stable funding plan for the UC and CSU, which
assumed increased General Fund support over a four-year
period. Under the plan, the UC and CSU would receive ive

percent annual base funding increases in 2013-14 and
2014-15 and a four percent increase in the following two
years with an expectation that they maintained their current
tuition and fee levels.
The 2015-2016 state budget, also provides the UC with an
additional $25 million in General Fund support, on top of
the $119.5 million already allocated, if it can demonstrate
it will increase resident undergraduate enrollment by 5,000
students by the 2016-2017 academic year. At $5,000 per
student, this is half of the traditional funding that the state
has provided for new students. In addition to increases in
student enrollment for the 2016-2017 academic year, the
UC released a proposal in November of 2015 to add 5,000
spots for in-state students between 2017-2018 and the
2018-2019 academic years, for a total of 10,000 new college
seats.14
These additional spots for in-state students would
be paid for by tuition increases on out-of-state students
and other sources. As a result of receiving an increase of
$216.5 million in General Fund support, the CSU is also
expected to increase enrollment by 10,400 FTES students.15
This demonstrates a concern by the Governor and our
policymakers on the importance of growing enrollment
funding that provide greater opportunity for California
students, but it is not enough.
Inconsistentandinsuficientfundingfromthestatehasmade
it dificult for the UC and CSU systems to accommodate
students who are eligible according to the Master Plan.
As a result, the UC system has turned to out-of-state and
international student enrollment to supplement decreases in
state funding in order to serve California residents; and the
CSU system has turned away tens of thousands of eligible
students each year. Without substantial increases in inancial
support from the state, California’s public universities will be
unable to serve and ensure equitable access for all eligible
students.
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
2015
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
Figure 3: California Experienced Rapid Population Growth Between
1950 and 2015
Population Estimates for California, 1950-2015
Source: California Department of Finance

Enrollment capacity is the ability of a university campus or
a system (e.g., the University of California system or the
California State University system) to serve all qualiied
students. If a campus or system lacks the funding or
physical capacity to enroll all eligible students, the response
is to tighten admissions standards in order to determine
who gets the spots available, in essence a solution to limit
enrollment. Figure 3 shows California’s population growth
over time. From 1950 to 2015 California’s population has
increased by 265 percent. In addition to California’s rapid
population growth over the past 65 years, California’s current
population is younger than most other states in the U.S.,
which has put additional pressure on our public colleges
and universities to accommodate more and more students
seeking a college degree (see Figure 4).16
Figure 4: California is younger and more diverse than the rest of the
country
Population Estimates by Age for California and the Nation, 2010 Census
10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
age
percent of the population
non-Hispanic White
Hispanic
African American
Asian/Paciic Islander
Other
Source: The Campaign for College Opportunity17
From 1950 to 2015 California’s
population has increased by 265 percent.
United States, except California California

Figure 5: The number of California public high school graduates
completing the A-G requirements is up 82% since 1996
California Public High School Graduates with UC/CSU Required Courses, 1996-97 to 2013-14
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
269,071
Total High
School Grads:
421,636
96,879
(36%)
HS Grads with
UC/CSU Req. Courses:
176,688
(42%)
Source: California Department
of Education Data Reporting
Ofice
California is also in the midst of an exodus of highly educated
Baby Boomers retiring from the workforce.18
This shift of
Baby Boomers into retirement along with a demand for more
educated workers will contribute to what is projected to be
a deicit of 1.1 million college-educated workers needed to
meet future workforce demands.19
More California Students Prepared to
Enter California’s Public Universities
The good news is that both the total number of high school
graduates and the number of high school graduates
successfully completing the sequence of courses required
for CSU and UC admission have increased over time.

Higher Education
in California
A Brief Overview
The current mission and role for California’s community colleges and public universities is outlined by
the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which was set in statute by the Donahoe Higher Education
Act.20
During the 1950’s, California’s Governor and our state policy makers sought to develop a plan for the
state’s public higher education system that would provide wide college opportunity (including free tuition
for California residents) and increase the educational preparation of the Baby Boomer generation as they
hit college-going age. The Master Plan established the California State University (CSU) system and set up
clear guidelines for the roles of the University of California (UC), CSU, and California Community Colleges in
serving students.21
According to the 1960 Master Plan, as modiied by subsequent legal and policy changes, the roles for the
UC, CSU, and California Community Colleges in California’s public higher education system are as follows:
• The UC is California’s public research university system and admits all eligible students who apply
from the top 12.5 percent of California’s public high school graduates.
• The CSU is primarily responsible for the instruction of undergraduates and master’s students. The
CSU draws from the top 33.3 percent of California’s public high school graduates.
• The California Community Colleges are primarily responsible for serving all students who would
beneit from a college education and providing a clear path to transfer for students from community
colleges into the UC and CSU. All students, even those who did not graduate high school, are eligible
to attend a California Community College. The California Community College system is speciically
responsible for the instruction of lower-division undergraduate education, workforce training, and
remedial education. The California Community Colleges award certiicates and degrees up to the
associate’s level with some exceptions. In 2015 the California Community College Board of Governors
gave their approval for 15 community colleges to develop bachelor’s degree programs in speciic
technical ields such as dental hygiene.22

The Master Plan was a historic effort by California leaders
that reflected a commitment to the educational preparation
of its citizens. The Master Plan created a framework
for addressing pressing higher education needs for the
impending population growth of the Baby Boomers. It
established the largest system of public higher education
in the country, if not the world—a system that today serves
two million students and was rightfully lauded for expanding
access for California’s then rapidly growing college-age
population.23
It also made a promise to its residents,
that regardless of economic resources (the Master Plan
noted that in state students should not pay any tuition),
all talented and eligible students would ind a spot in one
of its community colleges or universities. This promise has
been broken as state funding has failed to keep pace with
the growing demand and preparation for college amongst
our young people and tuition has been used as revenue to
provide funding for the UC and CSU.
To accommodate the increase in students, all three
segments of California’s public higher education system
have increased enrollment since the 1960s. The UC added
four universities, the CSU added eight, and the California
Community Colleges have added 46 new campuses to meet
the demands of the college-age population.24
The architects of the Master Plan created a phenomenal
framework responsible for economic prosperity and
innovation while addressing pressing higher education
needs for the impending population growth of the Baby
Boomers. However, a much smaller share of the population
attended college at the time and a high school diploma
provided access to greater opportunities into the middle
class than it does today. The UC and CSU enrollment
and eligibility limitations may have made sense back
then; however, with the growing value and demand for
bachelor’s degree holders, the unintended consequences
of a framework designed to address past needs—no matter
how visionary—could not be expected to address the needs
today of a very different California in the 21st century from
the one in 1960.
Dear California Student,
We are sorry to inform
you that, while you have done
everything you needed to do to
prepare yourself, the State of
California has not saved a spot
for you in one of our four-
year state universities.
Regretfully,
California Public Universities
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
ia Public Univer
s
i
t
y
1960 Master
Pl
a
n

The UC system educates undergraduate, graduate, and
professional students. With some exceptions, the UC is
the only public segment responsible for producing doctoral
degrees. The UC is also the only public segment designed
to award degrees in certain professional ields like law,
medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. According to
the most recent U.S. News and World Report rankings ive
of the nation’s top 10 public universities are members of the
UC system.25
Table 1 provides an overview of the UC system.
The University of California
Table 1: University of California, Founded in 1862
FEATURE STATISTIC
Number of Campuses 9 campuses *
Number of Disciplines
and Degree Programs
150 academic programs
600 graduate degree programs
Enrollment
(Fall 2013)
188,290 undergraduates
50,409 graduates
244,126 total students
87% California residents
5% out of state domestic students
8% international students
8% Other Asian
26% White
21% Latino
17% Chinese
4% Black
4% Filipino
4% Korean
4% Pakistani/East Indian
2% Japanese
1% American Indian
Budget
$25 billion
For the 2013-14 academic year, state appropriations
made up 10 percent of the UC’s operating budget.
Annual Degrees Conferred
(2012-13 Academic Year)
48,155 bachelor’s degrees
10,329 master’s degrees
4,117 doctoral degrees
2,196 professional practice degrees
Tuition and Fees
(2015-16 tuition and fees for
California resident undergraduates)
$11,220 for tuition
$1,020 for student service fees
* UC San Francisco does not enroll undergraduates. Additionally UC Hastings College of Law is not included in this count.

The CSU’s primary function is the instruction of
undergraduatesandgraduatesdegreesthroughthemasters’
level. The CSU is the largest four-year university system in
the country.26
Since 1961 the CSU system has awarded three
million degrees, almost exclusively to California residents.
The CSU is also authorized to offer doctoral degrees in
educational leadership, physical therapy, and is piloting
doctoral degrees in nursing practice. Other doctoral degrees
must be awarded jointly with the UC or another independent
institution. Table 2 provides an overview of the CSU system.
The California State University
Table 2: California State University, Founded in 1960
FEATURE STATISTIC
Number of Campuses 23 campuses
Number of Disciplines
and Degree Programs
231 undergraduate academic programs
Enrollment
(Fall 2013)
446,530 undergraduate students
54,937 postbaccalaureate/graduate
460,200 total students
96% in-state students
4 % out-of-state/international
35% Latino
28% White
16% Asian
5% Black
1% Filipino
>1% Paciic Islander
> 1% American Indian
Budget
$4.7 billion
For the 2014-15 academic year, state appropriations
made up 57 percent of the CSU’s operating budget.
Annual Degrees Conferred
85,063 bachelor’s degrees
18,209 master’s degrees
365 doctoral degrees
Tuition and Fees
$5,472 for full-time undergraduate in-state students

Admission to
the University
of California

Due to an on-going increase in the number of students
applying to the UC system, along with inconsistent and
insuficient state funding for enrollment growth, admission
to the UC system has become signiicantly more competitive
over time. Enrollment rates of non-resident students that pay
more tuition than California residents have increased over-
time. In 2007, 95 percent of undergraduate enrollment in the
UC system consisted of California residents, but by 2014
that percentage had dropped to 87 percent.27
Fees from out-
of-state and international students generated $620 million
in revenue for the UC in 2014.28
Although the past two state
budgets have increased state funding for the UC, it is still
short of guaranteeing that more California residents can
realize their dreams of attending a UC campus.
Beyond the general guidelines set forth by the Master Plan
mandating that the top 12.5 percent of California high
school students be eligible for admission to a UC campus,
the eligibility criteria for the UC system is determined by UC
faculty (Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools),
subject to approval by the Regents and monitored by the
California Postsecondary Education Commission until its
elimination in 2011.29
University of California Admissions:
1964-2012
In 1964 admissions to the UC system was fairly simple. By
the late 1970’s an eligibility index began standardizing the
use of GPA and SAT scores to determine student eligibility.
In 1988, the UC expanded a student’s ability to apply to
multiple campuses at once, which signiicantly increased
the number of applications campuses received. In 1998 a
serious decline in the number of Latino and Black students
who gained admission to the UC’s most selective campuses
occurred as the voter approved initiative (Prop 209) banning
the use of race/ethnicity in admissions decisions was
implemented. In the past decade, the UC has introduced
eligibility in the local context and holistic review (see Table
3) in an effort to expand opportunity for more Californian’s in
light of increased competition.
cdrin
/
Shutterstock.com
Table 3: Major Changes to Freshman Admissions to the University of
California, 1964-2012
YEAR ADMISSIONS POLICY
1964
An applicant to the UC only needed to complete a speciic set of high school courses with
satisfactory grades as determined by the campus to which he or she applied.
1968
SAT I (general aptitude test) and SAT II (achievement test in a particular subject area) added to
admissions criteria.
1977
An “eligibility index” was put in place which established a sliding scale required for students whose
high school GPA was between 2.78 and 3.29. Meaning students with a GPA of 3.29 or lower had to
achieve a higher SAT I score in order to be determined eligible for UC admissions.
1988
Multiple ilings was introduced by the UC system which allowed students to submit one application
to multiple campuses. Multiple ilings decreased the likelihood of students getting admitted at
certain campuses as the application volume increased dramatically.
1996
Proposition 209 was passed by California voters which banned the use of race/ethnicity as a factor
in admissions to public universities in California. Proposition 209 came into effect in 1998.
2001
Eligibility in the local context was enacted. Students could now be considered UC eligible if they
ranked in the top 4 percent of graduates of their speciic high school on UC designated coursework.
2011
UC Board of Regents approves a resolution calling for campuses to adopt a “individualized holistic
review” of applications.
2012
Eligibility in the local context was expanded to the top 9 percent of graduates within a particular high
school.
Sources: University of California Admissions and Relations with Schools,30
University of California Ofice of the President,31 32
Columbia
Broadcasting System.33

When applying for admission into the UC system, California
high school students have several pathways available to
them (Table 4).34
The “statewide” path guarantees admission
to students among the top 9 percent of all California high
school graduates and the “Eligibility in the Local Context”
(ELC) path provides admission for students among the top
9 percent of their high school’s graduating class. Recent
reforms, such as eliminating SAT II scores and considering
multiple measures of achievement and promise, have
moved the UC from an “eligibility index” model towards a
“holistic” model, which emphasizes comprehensive review
of students’ applications and qualiications beyond high
school GPA and standardized test scores.
The current admissions process to the
University of California
Table 4: California Resident UC Admissions Pathways (UCOP 2015)
Minimum Requirements
Earn a 3.0 or better cumulative high school GPA in A-G courses*
Successfully complete 11 of the 15 required A-G courses prior to beginning senior year
Take either the SAT or ACT by December of senior year
Admissions Guarantee Criteria
Statewide Path
Within top 9 percent of California high school graduates
on the admissions index (which is based on student’s
combined high school GPA and SAT/ACT score)
Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) Path
Within top 9 percent of his or her high school graduating
class (based on student’s overall GPA including A-G
courses*)
Admission to a UC Campus by Exam
Students who are not eligible via the statewide path nor the ELC path may be considered for admission to a speciic UC
campus based on the strength of test scores.
Admission to a UC Campus by Exception
A small number of students who have the ability and potential to succeed at UC, but are not UC eligible via the state wide
path nor the ELC path, may also be admitted to a speciic UC campus.
Source: University of California Ofice of the President37
* A-G courses are subject-speciic college preparatory high-school level courses designated by UC faculty
The UC gives students bonus points for successfully
completing advanced placement (AP courses). Over the
past decade the number of students taking AP courses
nationally has doubled.35
One reason why the average
high school GPA has increased within the UC has to
do with the increased access to AP classes for high
school students. While student access to AP courses
is increasing, access is not necessarily equitable.
Across California, students who are underrepresented
minorities, irst-generation college-going, and/or low-
income have less access to AP classes than do their
white, non-irst generation and high-income peers.36

The percentage of high school graduates applying to the UC
system has risen approximately 5 percent since the 1996-97
academic year (see Figure 6). As the number of applicants to
the UC increased, the gap between the number of applicants
and those admitted more than doubled from 3 percent
(1996) to 8.1 percent (2013).
The average high school GPA and median SAT scores
of students admitted to the UC system and to speciic
campuses have also increased over time.39
High school
students admitted into the UC system in 2014 average a
3.90 weighted GPA and a median SAT score of 1840 (max
score is 2400). Figure 7 shows the continuously increasing
average GPA of admitted students from 2001 to 2014, and
indicates that freshman students admitted to six of the nine
UC campuses in 2014 had an average weighted GPA of over
4.0.40 41
Figure 8 shows the continuously increasing median
combined SAT score of admitted students from 2001 to
2014, and indicates that freshmen admits in 2014 had a
median combined SAT score of 1840.
Figure 6: While the percentage of high school graduates applying to
the UC system has grown by 5 percentage points in the past 18 years,
the percent enrolling has decreased by almost 1 percentage point
Percentage of California High School Graduates Applying to, Admitted to, and Enrolling in the UC System
(Unduplicated), 1996-97 to 2013-14
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2013
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
14%
17%
8%
Applicants: 21%
Admits: 14%
Enrolled: 7%
Sources: University of
California Ofice of the
President Division of
Analytic Studies; California
Department of Education
DataQuest; Western
Interstate Commission for
Higher Education, Knocking
at the College Door38
A Note About GPAs and SAT Scores
In the traditional sense, a 4.0 is considered a perfect
GPA; a student who earned all A’s would get a 4.0. The
reason why a student’s GPA can be over a 4.0 is that
the UC gives students a GPA bump for taking Advanced
Placement classes.42
When we refer to a weighted
average high school GPA, we are indicating that this GPA
accounts for bonus points students receive for taking
Advanced Placement classes. The new SAT (Scholastic
Aptitude Test) added a writing component to meet the
demand of colleges which asked students to submit
writing samples as part of their application package.43
As the new SAT added an additional component, the
scoring guidelines were updated (see below).44
The Old SAT The New SAT
Max Score 1600 2400
Average Score
Nationally
1050 1520
Source: PowerScore SAT Preparation45

Figure 7: The average weighted high school GPA of students admitted
to six of the nine UC campuses in 2014 was over a 4.0
Average Weighted High School GPA of Students Admitted to the University of California, 2001-2014
Source: University of California
Ofice of the President
Figure 8: Near Perfect: The median SAT score of students admitted to
UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UC San Diego in 2014 was less than 400 points
from a perfect score
Median SAT Combined Score of Students Admitted to the University of California, 2001-2014
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Berkeley: 2140
Los Angeles: 2120
San Diego: 2070
Davis: 1980
Irvine: 1900
Santa Barbara: 1980
Universitywide: 1840
Santa Cruz: 1840
Riverside: 1750
Merced: 1630
2030
2020
1970
1860
1840
1790
1740
1660 1670
1820
Source: University of California
Ofice of the President
Los Angeles: 4.21
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Berkeley: 4.20
San Diego: 4.18
Davis: 4.11
Irvine: 4.09
Santa Barbara: 4.05
Universitywide: 3.90
Santa Cruz: 3.87
Riverside: 3.78
Merced: 3.63
4.12
4.07
4.04
3.86
3.84
3.74
3.63
3.55
3.52
3.83

While the number of Californians applying to the UC has
increased, enrollment of California residents has remained
flat or even declined at some UC campuses. According to
a recent state assembly report on higher education, ive of
the UC’s nine campuses enrolled fewer California resident
freshmen in 2013 than in 2007.46
This decrease in California
resident students occurred despite growth during this
period in the number of high school graduates in the state,
as well as the proportion of those graduates who had taken
college preparatory courses.47
The UC admissions process
has become increasingly competitive and restrictive, as
evidenced by the rising GPA and SAT scores of admitted
freshmen. In the 1960s and 70s, most eligible students
had little dificulty being admitted to the UC, but for today’s
generation that is not the case.48 49
At a time when a college
degree is needed more than ever for one’s economic
mobility, is it fair that it is harder for students today to be
admitted to the UC than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago?
Today’s generation of Californians is less likely to have
a four-year degree than their parents’ generation.50
The
Baby Boomer generation is well educated today due to
the fact that they had a great investment from the state,
which made California’s public university system easily
accessible. California also beneited from an influx of
educated Americans from other states, a trend unlikely to
be large enough to ill all of the state’s workforce needs in
the future. The Campaign calls on policy makers to increase
funding for the UC system so that the UC can admit more
in-state students, decrease unnecessary competition,
and give today’s generation of diverse Californians the
same level of access to its public universities as previous
generations.
GPA SAT
UCLA:
4.21
UC Davis:
4.11
UC Merced:
3.63
UCLA:
2120
UC Davis:
1980
UC Merced:
1630

Admission to the California
State University

Since its inception, the CSU system has been the point of
access for tens of thousands of California high school
graduates each year. According to guidelines established by
the Master Plan, CSU selects its applicants from the top 33.3
percent of California High School graduates. Historically,
CSU admissions have been relatively non-competitive and
based on students meeting a minimum “eligibility index”
score on a sliding scale (i.e., for students with a GPA below
3.0, lower GPAs must correspond with higher ACT/SAT
scores).51
Although not speciically outlined in the Master
Plan,52
most CSU campuses have also served the function of
regional colleges by directing most of their recruiting efforts
at their local areas and giving priority in admissions to local
resident students.
CSU campuses are the least selective of California’s public
universities and, until recently, have had little dificulty
(with some exception) providing a spot in college for all
eligible students who sought admissions, regardless of the
student’s proximity to the campus.53
The relatively open
access of the CSU system has contributed to its success
in educating hundreds of thousands of undergraduate
students each year. For a public university system that
currently admits around 75 percent of freshman applicants
under tight economic constraints, this is a considerable
achievement—but one that is endangered by the lack of
suficient investment by policymakers that can guarantee all
CSU eligible Californians the spot in college they deserve.
Table 5: CSU Freshmen California Resident Baseline Admissions
Eligibility Criteria
High School GPA
Successful completion of the 15 unit “A-G” course sequence after the 9th grade (2.0 GPA or better).
Honors Points
Students may receive bonus points for up to eight grades of C or better in approved honors courses taken after the 9th
grade, including a maximum of two International Baccalaureate (I.B.) or Advanced Placement (A.P.), or honors courses
taken in the tenth grade.
Test Scores—ACT/SAT
Test required for applicants to non-impacted campuses who have earned an “A-G” GPA of less than 3.0. CSU combines
best scores from multiple sittings of SAT and ACT to calculate best composite score. Regardless of GPA, students are
encouraged to take the ACT/SAT assessment text in their junior year of high school.
Source: California State University Ofice of the Chancellor54

Figure 9 shows while CSU student applications are up, the
gaps between those who applied and were admitted,55
and
the gap between those admitted and those who eventually
enrolled in the CSU has grown signiicantly over time. In only
the last 13 years, the applicant and admit gap grew from 7
percent to 13.2 percent and the admit and enrollment gap
more than doubled from 8.9 percent 18.5 percent. In 2000,
27 percent of California high school graduates applied to
the CSU system—13 years later nearly 50 percent of all
California high school graduates applied while the percent
of those students enrolling has not risen in kind.
Figure 9: Nearly 50 percent of California high school graduates applied
to the CSU system in 2013
Percentage of California High School Graduates Applying to, Admitted to, and Enrolling in the CSU system
(Unduplicated), 2001-02 to 2013-14
Sources: California State University, Division of Analytic Studies; California Department of Education DataQuest; Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education, Knocking at the College Door56
Note: The CSU does not provide data on California resident admissions years prior to 2011.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
20%
27%
11%
Applicants: 46%
Admits: 32%
Enrolled: 14%

Budget cuts and limited space have forced CSU campuses
to turn away an average of over 23,000 eligible students each
year over the past six years (see Figure 10). Because of the
signiicant increase in student applications to the CSU and
the potential of exceeding enrollment capacity, admissions
criteria in the CSU have increasingly shifted toward limiting
enrollment.
Figure 10: Number and Percentage of CSU Eligible Undergraduate
Students (First-time Freshmen and Undergraduate Transfers) Denied
Admission, 2009-2014
Source: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee57
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Fall 2014
Fall 2013
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2010
Fall 2009
10,435
28,803
21,697 22,123
26,430
30,209
In six years, the CSU turned away 139,697
eligible students. That’s nearly the total
population of the City of Pasadena.

Impacts of Increased Selectivity
(Impaction) on CSU Freshmen
Admissions
Limiting enrollment has been accomplished by university
leaders requesting that their institution be designated
as “impacted.”58
A campus or undergraduate major is
determined to be impacted when the number of applications
from eligible students exceeds the number of available
seats. Impaction in the CSU system began as early as 1965
when Executive Order No. 8 from the CSU Chancellor’s
ofice directed the presidents of each campus to limit
enrollment for the 1965-66 academic year. Each campus
was given a speciic enrollment number to adhere to, along
with instructions that any modiications to the enrollment
number or plan to reserve admissions spots on any basis
other than the chronological receipt of applications required
coordination with the CSU Ofice of the Chancellor.59
It was not until September of 2010, when California Assembly
Bill 2402 (Block) was passed, that state policymakers got
involved and established a legislative mandate for a CSU
campus proposing changes to admissions criteria that
would affect applicants residing within the local admission
area of the institution.60
This mandate was created “to
provide notice to the public and ensure the transparency
of decisions affecting admissions criteria for all of the
campuses of the California State University” in response to
concerns that impaction was happening without considering
the needs of local stakeholders.61
When a CSU campus is impacted, a student applying for
admission to the campus will need a GPA and SAT score that
is above the minimum CSU eligibility requirement in order to
be admitted. At times, an institution may not be impacted
at the campus level, but may have a number of individual
majors that are impacted (as shown in Table 6). When a
speciic major is impacted, a student applying for admission
into the major will need to meet the GPA and SAT score
requirement determined by the department overseeing that
major of interest. GPA and SAT test score requirements are
determined by each campus or major department after all
applications have been received.64
Adding to the complexity
of impaction is that it can occur at both the freshman and/or
transfer student admissions levels.
The irst CSU campus to be impacted in all majors was
San Luis Obispo in the late 1990’s, and by 2014, Fullerton,
San Diego, San Jose, and Long Beach had also declared
their campuses fully impacted. On these campuses, all
undergraduate majors have reached enrollment capacity
and must turn away qualiied students. Starting in 2016,
CSU Fresno will also become fully impacted at the freshman
admit level, and CSU Northridge is set increase their use of
impaction as well.65
Between 2004 and 2013, the number of campuses declaring
any level of impaction doubled and the number of academic
programs declared impacted in the CSU system increased
approximately 135 percent. Campuses such as San
Francisco and Sonoma State, while not fully impacted, have
a signiicant number of majors that are impacted (roughly 52
and 46 percent, respectively), and others like Pomona went
from 12 impacted majors in the 2015-16 academic year to
29 in the 2016-17 academic year.
A CSU campus or major can only be designated
as impacted after proving to the CSU Ofice of the
Chancellor that the campus has exhausted all other
options to accommodate all eligible students, which
include approaches such as flexible scheduling,
expanding distance learning and use of technology, and
using existing facilities imaginatively, to name a few.62
As outlined in Assembly Bill No. 2402, any institution
proposing changes to admissions criteria that would
affect applicants residing within the local admission
area(a geographic location near a speciic campus
where students receiver preferences in freshman and
transfer admissions) must also satisfy a series of steps,
including: a) consulting with stakeholders located within
the local admission area in a public meeting; b) holding
three public hearings in the campus’ local admission
area to solicit public comment on the proposed change;
c) providing public notice of the proposed change on the
campus’ website and in three newspapers of general
circulation in the local admission area that includes
a description of the proposed change, the right of the
public to comment, and the date, time and locations of
the meetings; d) publishing all public comments and
university responses, as well as the university’s inal
decision on the website of the affected campus; and
e) submitting the proposed change to the of the CSU
for approval who is required to decide and report on the
decision to the Trustees in writing at their next regularly
scheduled meeting.63
After being approved by the CSU
Ofice of the Chancellor, an impacted campus can then
adopt more competitive admissions processes as an
enrollment management strategy.

Table 6: Six CSU campuses will be fully impacted for the 2016-17
academic year
CSU Impaction, 2016-2017
CSU CAMPUS FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN IMPACTION
Fresno All majors
Fullerton All majors
Long Beach All majors
San Diego All majors
San Jose All majors
San Luis Obispo All majors
Pomona 29 out of 33 majors
Maritime Academy 4 out of 6 majors
San Francisco 20 out of 38 majors
Sonoma 11 out of 24 majors
Los Angeles 10 out of 33 majors
San Marcos 5 out of 20 majors
Northridge 7 out of 29 majors
Sacramento 8 out of 34 majors
Humboldt 5 out of 26 majors
San Bernardino 4 out of 30 majors
Chico 2 out of 34 majors
Bakersield 1 out of 25 majors
Channel Islands 1 out of 25 majors
Stanislaus 1 out of 25 majors
East Bay 1 out of 31 majors
Monterey Bay 0 out of 23 majors
Dominguez Hills 0 out of 26 majors
Source: California State University, Impacted Undergraduate Majors and Campuses in the California State University, 2016-201766

CSU impaction bodes poorly for students, as several
thousand are being completely turned away from the CSU
system. And for those who may still be able to gain admission
to campuses that are not fully impacted, they may not be
able to gain admission to their desired campus or major.
ThemostobviousbyproductsofimpactionatCSUcampuses
are the noticeable changes over time in average high school
GPAs and SAT combined scores of incoming freshmen.
Figure 9 shows that since 2000, fully impacted campuses
experienced increases in average high school GPA of
incoming freshmen at three to four times the rate of the
systemwide average. In contrast, Dominguez Hills and East
Bay—two non-impacted campuses that are representative
of the remaining CSU campuses—experienced slight
decreases. For clarity, Figures 11 and 12 only include
campuses that were fully impacted prior to 2014 and two
non-impacted campuses to serve as a comparison.
Figure 11: In 2014, the average GPA of admitted students at fully
impacted campuses was over 3.35
Average High School GPA of Students Admitted to California State University, 2000-2014
Source: CSU Ofice of the Chancellor, Division of Analytic Studies, CSU Freshman Proiciency Rates
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
San Luis Obispo: 3.86
Long Beach: 3.52
San Diego: 3.69
San Jose: 3.39
Fullerton: 3.53
Systemwide: 3.33
Dominguez Hills: 3.13
East Bay: 3.15
3.62
3.38
3.25
3.26
3.22
3.19
3.16
3.22
The Consequences of Increased
Competition in the CSU System

Figure 12 demonstrates similar trends in the average SAT
combined scores, with impacted campuses showing steady
increases over time while non-impacted campuses generally
experienced no change or slight decreases in average
scores. Systemwide, the average SAT combined score
increased only 2 points, whereas fully impacted campuses
experienced increases ranging from 40 to 72 points. This
means that as campuses become impacted, they raise the
admissions bar making it harder for students today to get in.
Figure 12: In 2013, the average SAT scores at fully impacted campuses
were over 1000
Average SAT Combined Score of Students Admitted California State University, 2000-2013
Long Beach: 1050
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
2013
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
San Luis Obispo: 1236
San Diego: 1115
San Jose: 1037
Fullerton: 1018
Systemwide: 985
Dominguez Hills: 848
East Bay: 913
1164
1069
983
981
978
992
840
934
Source: CSU Ofice of the Chancellor, Division of Analytic Studies, California State University Graduation Rates Consortium for Student
Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE).
Note: The CSU uses the old SAT scoring method.
On top of the differences in the admissions processes
created by impaction, CSU admissions processes also
differ for local and non-local students. In general, CSUs
are regional-serving universities and typically have given
priority in admissions to students residing in the local areas
that they serve. To be admitted to a local CSU campus, a
student attending a high school in the CSU campus’ local
admission area would generally just need to meet minimum
CSU systemwide eligibility requirements. However, a student
interested in applying to a CSU campus that does not
serve his or her local area must often meet more selective
admissions criteria in order to be admitted to that campus.
Hence, a student who is applying to an impacted major on
a CSU campus that is outside her local area must cross the
double-hurdle of meeting more stringent admissions criteria
at both the campus and major level.
CSU Local Areas

Recent changes at California State University, Northridge
(CSUN) provide insight into how impaction affects
local admission areas. Prior to the 2015-16 academic
year, CSUN’s local admission area included all high
schools from most of Los Angeles County and all of
Ventura County. In February of 2015, however, CSUN
announced plans to change its admissions criteria and
local admission areas by way of impaction. Speciically
related to local admission areas, what was once a fairly
expansive local admission area for freshmen has now
been reduced by excluding all of Ventura County and a
portion of east Los Angeles County. Eligible students
graduating from high schools in these now-excluded
areas are not guaranteed a spot at CSUN as they once
were, must possess a higher eligibility index score
than the CSU minimum, and must meet even higher
admissions criteria if they apply to certain academic
majors (e.g., accounting, business administration,
inance, psychology, kinesiology, music, and cinema and
television arts). In the midst of these changes, however,
CSUN is taking steps to make it a smooth transition for
students affected by the changes. For example, students
who reside in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties may
still be given local admission priority at CSUN if their
desired major is not offered at Cal State Channel Islands,
the only campus available to Ventura County students
with a local area admission guarantee.67
Despite these
additional accommodations, the fact remains that a
student’s ability to access the CSU system is reduced
by changes in local admission areas. Students at certain
East Los Angeles high schools now only have Cal State
Los Angeles as an option for local preferences instead
of having both Cal State LA and CSUN.
Effects of CSU Northridge’s Local Area Change on Freshmen Applicants
Having discussed the various aspects of impaction, it
may be useful to provide a real-world scenario that sheds
light on some of the barriers to Californians accessing
CSU campuses. Consider a student graduating from
Whittier High School in Whittier, California (southeast
Los Angeles County) who meets the minimum eligibility
criteria for CSU admissions as discussed above.
Within 20 miles in various directions, this student has
ive CSU campuses: Pomona, Fullerton, Long Beach,
Los Angeles, and Dominguez Hills. Seemingly, having
ive CSU campuses in such close proximity would
signiicantly increase the chances of accessing the
CSU system. However, campus/major impaction and
local admissions preference areas at the institutional
level decrease the ability of this student to access a
CSU campus close to home through minimum CSU
admissions eligibility. In this scenario, Fullerton is a fully
impacted campus, which means the “local” student may
receive an additional bump in her eligibility index score
(as opposed to the local admissions guarantee offered
by some other non-impacted campuses), but is then
required to compete against all applicants and must
meet higher initial admissions criteria and/or higher
admissions criteria for speciic majors. Pomona, Los
Angeles, and Long Beach do not include Whittier in their
irst-time freshman “local” admissions area, and all of
them have a signiicant number of impacted majors;
therefore, she would be required to meet the higher
admissions criteria established for “non-local” students
and/or higher admissions standards for an impacted
major. Dominguez Hills is the only institution in the
student’s “local” area that is not currently impacted and
would be accessible through the minimum eligibility
criteria for the CSU system.
The Whittier High School Graduate Scenario

Ultimately, this scenario underscores the confusing and
competitive process of gaining admission to a CSU campus.
Furthermore, if these trends continue, this scenario will
become more and more common for students across the
state of California attempting to access the CSU system.
The Task Force for a Sustainable Financial Model for the
CSU recognized these issues and recommended in a recent
draft report that the CSU system develop a robust process
for re-directing denied eligible students from campuses
at capacity to other campuses across the system that are
able to accommodate additional students.68
While certainly
an approach that needs to be considered, re-direction is
only one part of a solution to a more complex problem of
ensuring adequate funding for enrolling all eligible students.
Even considering some of the efforts discussed previously
to ensure access to the CSU system, impaction in the CSU
system has made the college-going process more dificult
over time relative to demand. What used to be a fairly simple
application process for students seeking admission to the
CSU system is now full of variation, where students must
often times navigate their way through vague or ambiguous
information on admissions websites in an effort to determine
if they meet minimum eligibility requirements, if their major or
campus is impacted, and what that means for their chances
to be admitted to college. And although we know about and
can describe the criteria for a campus or major declaring
impaction, no information is publicly available that speaks
to the process campuses and departments go through to
determine varying eligibility requirements and whether they
are considering disproportionate impact or equity concerns
in the admissions process for those impacted campuses
or majors. A more transparent process is necessary that
ensures colleges are evaluating the impact of raising the
admissions bar to their universities and that guarantees
a method for reversing impaction when possible and that
fully address any disparate impact that this process may
have for some Californians. The Campaign calls on policy
makers to increase funding for the CSU system so that
the CSU no longer has to deny eligible students, decrease
unnecessary competition and give today’s generation of
diverse Californians the same level of access to our public
universities as previous generations.
TheImportanceofCommunityCollege
Transfer Pathways
This report is focused on the ability of California’s UC and
CSU to serve irst-time freshman applicants. However, it
is important to understand the role the community college
system plays in bachelor’s degree attainment in California.
By design, the Master Plan caps enrollment in the UC
and CSU to the top 12.5 and 33.3 percent of high school
graduates, and assigns the community college system with
the important role of preparing students for transfer to the
UC and CSU. Therefore, transferring from a community
college is intended to serve as another pathway to bachelor’s
degree attainment for students falling outside of the top
33.3 percent of high school graduates. This community
college transfer option is important, as over 70 percent of
all students enrolled in California’s public higher education
system are enrolled in a community college (see Figure
16). Unfortunately, the transfer process is broken. Between
1980 and 2013, enrollment in California’s community college
system has grown by 65 percent, from 885,658 students
to 1,462,866 students (see Figure 15); yet, the number of
students community colleges send to the UC and CSU has
remained fairly consistent over time ranging from around
57,000 students to 64,000 student annually.69
On a positive
note more recent efforts like the adoption of Transfer Reform
SB 1440/440 (Padilla) have established clearer pathways for
community college students seeking admission to the CSU
system.
Another major issue with the transfer process is that both
the UC and the CSU have a inite number of new students
that they can enroll each year. In accordance with the Master
Plan, the UC determines their new student enrollment using a
2:1 ratio of new freshmen and community college transfers.
Despite the statutory ratio, approximately 70 percent of all
new student enrollment within the UC system occurs at the
freshmen level (as seen in Figure 13).

Figure 13: The UC system enrolls freshmen to transfers at nearly a
2:1 ratio
Percentage of First-time Freshmen to Undergraduate Transfer Students at the University of California,
Fall Enrollment, 1996-2014
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
30%
71% First-time
Freshmen: 70%
Transfer: 30%
Source: University of California Ofice of the President
29 percent of UC graduates and 51 percent of
CSU graduates started their college journeys
in a California community college.70

Historically, new student enrollment in the CSU system was
weighted heavily towards community college students over
irst-time freshmen. Despite an increase in the number
of community college transfer students enrolling in the
CSU system, enrollment igures suggest that the typically
higher percentage of community college transfer student
enrollment has changed in recent years. In 1996, 57 percent
of all CSU new student enrollment came from community
college transfers (see Figure 14). By 2014, that percentage
had decreased to 45 percent. Conversely, the percentage of
new CSU student enrollment from irst-time freshmen has
increased from 43 percent in 1996 to 56 percent in 2014.
Although not included in Figure 14, it is important to note
that we also calculated new student enrollment for the entire
academic year as opposed to only fall enrollment and found
a similar pattern where the CSU has switched to enrolling
more new students as freshmen as opposed to community
college transfers.
California’s UC and CSU engage in a give and take when it
comes to enrolling freshmen versus transfer students. That
means that if current reforms to transfer pathways (e.g., SB
1440) signiicantly increase the number of transfer students,
there may not be space for the CSU and UC to absorb those
students without displacing irst-time freshmen. The bottom
line is that capacity must be expanded at the four-year level
to serve any potential increase in transfer enrollment and
meet the growing demand of eligible freshman applicants.
The UC and CSU should not be forced to choose between
enrolling freshmen or transfer students.
Figure 14: Since 2000, irst-time freshmen make up a greater
percentage of enrollments in the CSU than transfer students
Percentage of First-time freshmen to Undergraduate Transfer Students at California State University,
Fall Enrollment, 1996-2014
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
57%
43%
First-time
Freshmen: 56%
Transfer: 45%
California State University,
Division of Analytic Studies

In some ways, the Master Plan has been successful at
expanding access for Californians when you consider the 65
percent growth in total undergraduate enrollment between
1980 and 2013. Simultaneously, however, the Master Plan
limited the ability of the UC and CSU systems to serve
additional students by reducing the percentage of California
high school students eligible for admission to each system—
going from the top 15 percent down to the top 12.5 percent
for the UC system and from the top 50 percent down to the
top 33 percent for CSU system. As a result of the heightened
selectivity in the public four-year sector and signiicant
increases in student demand, over 70 percent of the growth
between 1980 and 2013 was captured by the California
Community College system (as seen in Figure 15).
One positive aspect of California’s large two-year sector
is that more students are able access a higher education
today than prior to the implementation of the Master Plan.
In response to population increases, California’s public
higher education system has also grown and now educates
nearly ten times as many students than it did in 1960.71
On
the negative side, due to caps on four-year enrollment, only
11 percent of California’s 18 to 29 year old population (see
Appendix 5) attends a four-year university (either public or
private not-for-proit), which places California in 49th place
out of 50 states.
How the Structure of
California’s Public Four-Year
Universities Is Impacting
Admissions and Enrollment
Figure 15: California community colleges currently enroll almost twice
as many students as the UC and CSU combined
Total Undergraduate Enrollment in California’s Public Higher Education System, 1980-2013
Source: U.S.
Department
of Education,
National Center
for Education
Statistics,
Integrated
Postsecondary
Education Data
System (IPEDS).
Note: The data
reflects total
undergraduate
enrollment.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1980
255,204
885,658
96,080
CCC: 1,465,400
CSU: 392,428
UC: 188,008

92.9%
92.9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
CALIFORNIA
Illinois
Wyoming
Arizona
Iowa
New Mexico
North Carolina
Texas
Mississippi
Oregon
Minnesota
Hawaii
New Jersey
South Carolina
Virginia
Maryland
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Kansas
New York
Nebraska
Michigan
Kentucky
Tennessee
Missouri
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Ohio
Oklahoma
Maine
Alabama
Louisiana
Delaware
Colorado
New Hampshire
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Idaho
Indiana
Vermont
West Virginia
Utah
Montana
South Dakota
North Dakota
Nevada
Florida
Alaska 92.9% 7.1%
90.3%
88.2%
73.8%
75.6%
79.8%
83.3%
83.4%
61.1%
62.0%
62.5%
62.7%
64.6%
66.8%
73.8%
59.4%
59.8%
60.0%
60.3%
60.7%
60.7%
53.4%
53.6%
54.1%
54.6%
59.1%
59.3%
48.5%
48.8%
50.2%
51.8%
51.9%
52.9%
45.9%
46.8%
46.1%
46.2%
46.8%
46.8%
47.1%
48.2%
42.7%
45.7%
42.2%
39.2%
39.0%
36.0%
30.8%
29.2%
28.4%
9.7%
11.8%
26.2%
24.4%
20.2%
16.7%
16.6%
39.3%
39.3%
38.9%
38.0%
37.5%
37.3%
35.4%
33.2%
26.2%
40.9%
40.7%
40.6%
40.2%
40.0%
39.7%
49.8%
48.2%
48.1%
47.1%
46.6%
46.4%
45.9%
45.4%
54.1%
53.9%
53.8%
53.2%
53.2%
53.2%
52.9%
51.8%
51.5%
51.2%
71.6%
70.8%
69.2%
64.0%
61.0%
60.8%
57.8%
57.3%
54.3%
Figure 16: California ranks last nationally in terms of the percentage of
undergraduate students enrolled in a four-year public university
Percent Public Institution Undergraduate Enrollment by Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions, Fall 2013
Four-year
Two-year
Source: U.S.
Department of
Education, National
Center for Education
Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary
Education Data
System (IPEDS).
Data reflects total
undergraduate
enrollment.

States that enroll a smaller proportion of their college-age
population in four-year institutions also tend to have lower
bachelor’s degree completions.72
Thus, despite the rapid
growth in California’s public higher education system,
California is still falling behind other states, ranking 45th
nationally in bachelor’s degree completions within the
college-age population (see Appendix 4).
Why is it important that eligible CSU
and UC applicants get their spot in
four-year systems?
Where a student starts their college career is an important
factor in determining whether they will complete their
bachelor’s degree. Students enrolling as freshmen directly
into a four-year institutions are more likely to eventually
complete a bachelor’s degree.73
Figure 17 shows the relationship between irst-time
freshmen enrollment in a four-year institution and bachelor’s
degree completion among students 18-29 years old for all
50 states. Results indicate that a state’s rate of irst-time
freshmen enrollment in a four-year university is strongly
related to a state’s rate of bachelor’s degree completion
within each state’s college-age population.
Our analysis of U.S. Department of Education (IPEDS)
enrollment and completions data inds similar results to
what others have found with regard to the importance of
irst-time freshman enrollment over transfer enrollment in
bachelor’s degree completions. At the national level, results
suggest that the rate of irst-time freshmen enrollment in a
four-year university for the college-age (18 to 29) population
is more strongly associated with the rate of bachelor’s
degree completion within the college-age population than
is the rate of transfer enrollment within the college-age
population (see Appendix 1). Our indings from California also
yielded similar results, in which after controlling for sector
of four-year institution (i.e., public or private not-for-proit),
irst-time freshmen enrollment is more strongly associated
with bachelor’s degree completions than transfer student
enrollment (see Appendix 2).
These indings suggest that increasing irst-time freshman
enrollment at the four-year level is crucial for improving
rates of college completion in California and is therefore vital
for addressing the state’s bachelor’s degree deicit. While it
may be tempting for some to blame academic preparation
for California’s low bachelor’s degree attainment rate, other
states are contending with similar issues yet enroll a greater
proportion of their student population in four-year colleges
and universities and have better outcomes as it relates to
bachelor’s degree completions.
Due to the small enrollment in California’s
four-year sector relative to its two-year sector,
Caifornia ranks last in the nation in the
proportion of its students enrolled in four-
year versus two-year colleges.

Figure 17: First-time freshmen enrollment is strongly correlated with
bachelor’s degree completions
The Relationship Between First-time Freshmen Enrollment and Bachelor’s Degree Completion,
2012-13 Academic Year
Sources: 2012 American Community Survey and Integrated Post Secondary Education System (IPEDS)
Note: Data includes both public and private not-for-proit four-year universities. Enrollment is for Fall 2012 degree seeking
undergraduates.
10 20 30 40 50 60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CA
BA completions per 1,000 population 18-29 years old
Freshmen
enrollment
per
1,000
population
18-29
years
old
VT
RI
WY
AZ
AK
NY
TX
IL
FL

At a time when California is predicted to be short 1.1 million
bachelor’s degrees needed to meet the future demands of its
economy, it should not be harder for the current generation
of California high school graduates be admitted to either the
UC or CSU today than it was for past generations.
One of the greatest strengths of the Master Plan was its
ability to adapt to California’s rapid population growth while
still providing access to higher education for a signiicant
proportion of Californians. While the Master Plan should be
lauded for providing access, the percentage caps placed on
enrollment in the University of California (12.5 percent) and
California State University (33.3 percent) are creating a zero-
sum game. Increased competition for limited spots in college
is not a win-win situation—it creates winners and losers at a
time when our economy demands that more students have
the college preparation that more jobs require.
In addition to the zero-sum nature of college eligibility in a
system that is not able to expand to meet growing student
and workforce demands, students seeking to obtain
admission to popular UC and CSU campuses are facing an
increasingly competitive environment. As the number of
applications to schools like UC Berkeley, UCLA, Cal Poly-San
Luis Obispo, and San Diego State soar, students are forced
to compete with each other at an unprecedented level for
a limited number of spots. This level of competition is
heightened in years where the state cuts or inadequately
funds enrollment for the UC and CSU.
California is in the enviable position of having a diverse
and growing young adult population that is more prepared
for college than ever before, wants to go to college, and
can compete in a more globalized economy if it receives
the preparation and skills necessary for the 21st century.
While the enrollment caps of the Master Plan for Higher
Education in 1960 were visionary for those times, they are
inadequate for today. Increasing the number of Californians
able to attend our UC and CSU is what the state needs to
ensure that it prepares the educated workforce needed
to strengthen our economy, and stop making it harder
for our students today to realize their college dreams.
We need courageous and visionary leadership from the
Governor and state policymakers who need to renew their
commitment to investing in California’s human capital.
Just like California’s drought threatens our future and
calls for immediate solutions, so does the state’s potential
shortage of a college-educated populace.
Conclusion
Just like California’s drought threatens
our future and calls for immediate
solutions, so does the state’s potential
shortage of a college-educated populace.

California needs a new strategic vision that acknowledges
the limitations of its public higher education system and
can focus on meeting the increased demands of both
students who want to go to college and employers who need
better skilled workers. Californians need a vision for higher
education focused on the 21st century and not steeped in
the history of the 1960’s. This vision includes ensuring that
college opportunity and success are equally available to all
Californians across the diversity of race/ethnicity, income
status, and regions. Californians need courageous college
leaders willing to do things differently in order to serve more
students and ensure their success. Below are some speciic
recommendations:
The Governor and Legislature need to develop
and adopt a statewide plan for higher education.
A statewide plan would allow California to be
intentional about maintaining and strengthening
access to public higher education for all students
in California. While the Master Plan of 1960 was
visionary for its time, it no longer reflects California’s
diverseandgrowingpopulationorthefutureneedsof
the economy. The plan would provide policymakers
and stakeholders the opportunity to assess the
state’s needs, identify attainment goals, and align
all policy and funding priorities to achieving those
goals.
Revise the Master Plan enrollment caps to allow
more students to enroll directly into California’s
UC and CSU systems, beyond what the current
12.5 percent for the UC and 33.3 percent for the
CSU permits. California’s public four-year sector is
simply too small to adequately serve the growing
population and the increased demand by employers
for better skilled workers.74
California policy makers
should at a minimum consider increasing the
enrollment caps so that the UC once again draws
from the top 15 percent of high school graduates
and the CSU draws from the top 40 percent of high
school graduates.
We recognize that such modiications have serious
impacts on state investments in higher education.
We believe a thorough review of how to grow
enrollment, improve success rates for students
once they are in college and explore innovation to
increase college access is long over due. Given the
exceptional return on investment for state funds
spent on our human capital, we also trust that in
the long term, expanding college opportunity and
increasing the number of college graduates in
California will be worth every dollar.
Even if a statewide plan for higher education is not
adopted and enrollment caps are not moved, today
the legislature and Governor could fully fund the
UC and CSU to serve all eligible students. It is clear
that demand outweighs capacity at California’s
public four-year institutions.
a. For the UC, funding should be allocated in a
way that allows the UC to enroll more eligible
in-state students at a campus of their choice,
thus, eliminating the need for the referral pool
and expanding diversity at all campuses.
Policy Implications and
Recommendations
2
1
3

b. For the CSU, funding should be allocated such
that the CSU no longer has to turn away eligible
in-state students and lessens or fully eliminates
the need for impaction of campuses and within
majors.
c. For both systems, efforts should be made to
increase the participation rate of California
high school graduates in both the UC and CSU
system directly after graduating from high
school.
The UC should further cap out of state and
international students, particularly at its most
popular campuses, especially with so many qualiied
and talented Californians seeking admission. It
should also phase out the practice of providing
any aid to non-resident students until the inancial
needs of all low- and middle-income Californians
are met.
The CSU system should immediately work to
ensure that impaction is better understood by
students and their families, both across campuses
and majors. As students navigate the application
process, they deserve a clear understanding of
what their chances are for admissions. All CSU
campuses should make sure information related
to the academic credentials needed for students to
gain admission to a particular campus/major are
clearly presented on each campus’ website. While
some CSU campuses post information with regards
to the minimum admissions index score needed,
others do not. The CSU should mandate that all
schools present this information.
CSU impaction should be reviewed on a regular
basis. While a formal process for CSU campuses to
declare impaction exists, to our knowledge there is
no process for reevaluating the need for impaction
at each campus at any regular interval, nor is there
a process for reviewing whether impaction is having
a disproportionate impact on a speciic community
of students.
The CSU system should construct a formal referral
process so that CSU eligible students denied
admission at impacted campuses are admitted
to and are able to enroll at another regional area
campus.
4
5
6
7

Linear regression model examining the relationship between the rate of irst-time freshmen enrollment in the college-age
population (18 to 29) and transfer enrollment in the college-age population on BA degree completions in the college-age
population.
APPENDIX 1
Source SS df MS
Model
Residual
3104.97591 2 1552.48796
1386.975 47 29.5101064
Total 4491.95091 49 91.6724675
Number of obs = 50
F (31 74) = 52.61
Prob > F = 0.0000
R-squared = 0.6912
Adj R-squared = 0.6781
Root MSE = 5.4323
BAcomp_All_pop Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| Beta
UGenroll_All_Fresh_pop
UGenroll_All_Trans_pop
_cons
.6675455 .0727821 9.17 0.000 .770169
.4383305 .2152575 2.04 0.047 .1709909
3.970359 3.80971 1.04 0.303 .
Notes: We used fall 2012 data for irst-time freshmen enrollment in a four-year university and transfer enrollment. The
dependent variable BA completions represents the grand total of bachelor’s degrees awarded (irst major). For each state,
a rate was calculated using the sum of their enrollment (freshmen and transfer) or degree completions based on 2012
American Community Survey (ACS) estimates of the 18-29 population for each state. Note. The IPEDS transfer variable is
an imperfect measure as we don’t know from which school students transferred. IPEDS enrollment and completions data is
representative of public and private not for proit institutions.
Stata code formulas for calculating rates
bysort State: gen UGenroll_All__Fresh_pop=( sum freshmen enrollment /ACS population estimate)*1000
bysort State: gen UGenroll_All__trans_pop=( sum transfer enrollment /ACS population estimate)*1000
bysort State: gen BAcomp_All=( sum BA degrees awarded/ACS population estimate)*1000

Linear regression model examining the relationship between irst-time freshmen and transfer enrollment on BA degree
completions in California.
APPENDIX 2
name:
log:
log-type:
opened on:
<unnamed>
CCOLA-SRVFolder RedirectionDByrdDesktop/EnrollmentCompletions.txt
text
15 Oct 2015, 12:58:16
. use “${path}EnrollmentCompletions20123CA.dta”;
. bysort UnitID: keep if _n==1;
(0 observations deleted)
. encode Sector, gen(sectors);
. drop if sectors==1;
(90 observations deleted)
. *Make public institutions the reference category;
. recode sectors (3=0) (2=1) , gen(RSectors);
(181 differences between sectors and RSectors)
. regress All_BA_comp i.RSectors All_irst All_transfer , b;
Source SS df MS
Model
Residual
478076559 3 159358853
15689255.4 106 148011.844
Total 493765814 109 4529961.6
Number of obs = 110
F (3, 106) = 1076.66
Prob > F = 0.0000
R-squared = 0.9682
Adj R-squared = 0.9673
Root MSE = 384.72
All_BA_comp Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| Beta
1 .RSectors
All_irst
All_transfer
_cons
107.8892 128.3978 0.84 0.403 .0233358
1.097109 .0486946 22..52 0.000 .7743281
.5109396 .0562548 9.08 0.000 .2674051
-189.048 133.2572 -1.42 0.159 .
. log close;
name:
log:
log-type:
opened on:
<unnamed>
CCOLA-SRVFolder RedirectionDByrdDesktop/EnrollmentCompletions.txt
text
15 Oct 2015, 12:58:16
.
end of do-ile
Notes: For the sector dummy variable, public four-year enrollment served as the reference category. First-time Freshmen
enrollment in a four-year university (includes both public and private not-for-proit institutions) was calculated for the fall
of 2012 term. Transfer enrollment was also calculated for the fall of 2012 term. The transfer measure is an imperfect
measure, as we do not know from which school students transferred. It should be noted that the enrollment igures are for
all undergraduate students and are not distinguished between full-time or part-time enrollment. The dependent variable (BA
completions) represents the grand total of bachelor’s degrees awarded (irst major) during the 2012-13 academic year.

Bachelor’s Degree Completion per 1,000 in the 18 to 29 College-Age Population Per State
State
Bachelor’s Degree
Completion
State
Bachelor’s Degree
Completion
Alaska 13.22 North Carolina 31.85
Alabama 33.45 North Dakota 42.50
Arkansas 29.55 Nebraska 45.64
Arizona 19.37 New Hampshire 46.68
California 24.57 New Jersey 29.74
Colorado 32.02 New Mexico 22.24
Connecticut 38.06 Nevada 16.22
Delaware 41.26 New York 38.04
Florida 28.68 Ohio 35.61
Georgia 24.94 Oklahoma 30.57
Hawaii 25.46 Oregon 34.95
Iowa 44.76 Pennsylvania 43.43
Idaho 38.60 Rhode Island 58.52
Illinois 30.26 South Carolina 28.81
Indiana 42.22 South Dakota 37.53
Kansas 39.52 Tennessee 31.28
Kentucky 30.21 Texas 24.71
Louisiana 27.45 Utah 50.16
Massachusetts 49.40 Virginia 35.94
Maryland 33.14 Vermont 59.02
Maine 38.11 Washington 27.71
Michigan 36.48 Wisconsin 39.40
Minnesota 37.52 West Virginia 36.75
Missouri 39.53 Wyoming 20.68
Mississippi 27.64
Montana 35.54 California Rank 45th in the country
Note: Data includes graduates from public four-year universities and private not for proit four-year universities.
APPENDIX 3

State
Percent of 18-29
year old population
enrolled in a four-
year university as
a degree-seeking
undergraduate
student
Rate of
undergraduate
degree-seeking
enrollment in
a four-year
university per
1,000 in the 18-29
year old population
State
Percent of 18-29
year old population
enrolled in a four-
year university as
a degree-seeking
undergraduate
student
Rate of
undergraduate
degree-seeking
enrollment in
a four-year
university per
1,000 in the 18-29
year old population
Alabama 15.12% 151.20 Nebraska 15.12% 151.21
Alaska 18.90% 189.04 Nevada 26.67% 266.70
Arizona 18.48% 184.80 New Hampshire 21.31% 213.06
Arkansas 10.80% 108.00 New Jersey 23.14% 231.39
California 10.56% 105.64 New Mexico 14.05% 140.54
Colorado 17.36% 173.57 New York 13.70% 136.96
Connecticut 17.82% 178.23 North Carolina 17.23% 172.31
Delaware 20.88% 208.83 North Dakota 19.37% 193.67
Florida 24.14% 241.42 Ohio 20.31% 203.12
Georgia 16.54% 165.42 Oklahoma 18.48% 184.79
Hawaii 14.41% 144.08 Oregon 16.27% 162.68
Idaho 19.80% 197.98 Pennsylvania 20.41% 204.15
Illinois 23.12% 231.23 Rhode Island 28.49% 284.86
Indiana 13.09% 130.86 South Carolina 14.42% 144.19
Iowa 22.31% 223.06 South Dakota 22.56% 225.57
Kansas 18.82% 188.22 Tennessee 16.46% 164.58
Kentucky 17.30% 173.05 Texas 12.74% 127.35
Louisiana 16.07% 160.66 Utah 31.18% 311.85
Maine 22.22% 222.18 Vermont 17.60% 175.97
Maryland 15.53% 155.28 Virginia 28.30% 282.99
Massachusetts 20.38% 203.79 Washington 13.38% 133.83
Michigan 20.21% 202.15 West Virginia 21.24% 212.35
Minnesota 16.82% 168.22 Wisconsin 22.35% 223.53
Mississippi 20.04% 200.42 Wyoming 10.10% 101.04
Missouri 14.51% 145.12
Montana 23.81% 238.06 California Rank 49th in the country 49th in the country
APPENDIX 4

2012 American Community Survey 18-29 year-old population estimates
. svy: tabulate state age, count format(%14.3gc);
(running tabulate on estimation sample)
Number of strata = 1 Number of obs = 458,277
Number of PSUs = 458,277 Population size = 52,468,303
Design df = 458,276
APPENDIX 5
state count
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
138,635
787,387
480,044
1,086,569
6,798,719
888,634
552,643
150,349
3,018,476
1,684,762
242,101
506,074
263,940
2,151,695
1,080,214
494,528
703,253
806,945
1,145,117
972,728
191,350
1,586,540
864,799
989,905
508,992
159,020
1,598,150
139,375
308,151
201,162
1,339,605
350,889
448,687
3,417,615
state count
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Total
1,832,293
648,165
624,401
2,072,084
189,332
792,478
143,018
1,045,896
4,566,331
549,129
1,397,288
103,852
1,152,612
918,730
279,385
99,256
52,468,303
Key: count = weighted count

A special thanks to our principal funders for this project: California Education Policy Fund, College Futures Foundation,
Sand Hill Foundation, Angell Foundation, Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund, Ford Foundation, Kresge Foundation, Lumina
Foundation, Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation, and Walter S. Johnson Foundation. Their commitment and dedication
to increasing opportunity for all Americans in higher education is to be admired. We would also like to thank the additional
funders who make our work possible, including: The California Wellness Foundation, David & Lucille Packard Foundation,
and the Working Poor Families Project.
This report would not have been possible without the critical input, feedback, and signiicant time of our reviewers. The
Campaign for College Opportunity is grateful for their involvement, expertise, and guidance. Our reviewers included Saul
Geiser, Pam Burdman, Hans Johnson, Stephen Handel, Nina Robinson, Colleen Moore, Nancy Shulock, Edward Sullivan,
Ginger Reyes, Mary Gill, and Charles Masten.
We would also like to thank the numerous people and organizations which have been calling attention to this issue for
decades. Principal authors and researchers of this report are Daniel Byrd, Ph.D., Rob Shorette, Ph.D., and Michele Siqueiros,
with contributions from Tiffany Tsang and Audrey Dow.
Acknowledgments
Page 1
Getting into the University of California: Source for all igures - University of California Ofice of the President (UCOP). Getting
into the California State University: Fully impacted campuses – California State University Chancellor’s Ofice; Number of
denied students - Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee.
Page 2
Where California ranks: Sources for all igures - U.S. Census Bureau and National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System. Who’s paying for college?: State funding vs tuition chart – Legislative Analyst Ofice
and the California Department of Finance; State funding chart - California Department of Finance.
Infographic Notes and Sources

1
Johnson, Hans. (2012). Defunding Higher Education: What are the Effects on College Enrollment? A report produced by
the Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf on October
12, 2015.
2
Stiles, J., Hout, M. & Deutsch, M. (2012). Economic Payoff: Investing in College Access & Completion. The Campaign for
College Opportunity. Retrieved from http://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Californias_Economic_
Payoff_Full_Report_FINAL.pdf on October 12, 2015.
3
Stiles, J., Hout, M. & Deutsch, M. (2012). Economic Payoff: Investing in College Access & Completion. The Campaign for
College Opportunity. Retrieved from http://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Californias_Economic_
Payoff_Full_Report_FINAL.pdf on October 12, 2015.
4
Geiser, S. & Atkinson, R.C. (2012). Beyond the Master Plan: The Case for Restructuring Baccalaureate Education in
California. California Journal of Politics and Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/iles/shared/
publications/docs/Geiser_S-Beyond_the_Master_Plan.pdf on October 12, 2015.
5
California State University. (2002). Budget Cuts Force California State University Board of Trustees to Raise Fees.
Retrieved from https://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2002/BOTfees2.shtml on November 20, 2015.
6
University of California Ofice of the President (2014). University of California Report to the Governor and the Legislature:
Three฀Year Financial Sustainability Plan and Performance Outcome Measure Goals.Retrieved from http://regents.
universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov14/l5attach.pdf on November, 17, 2015.
7
California Budget & Policy Center. (2015). State Spending Per Student at CSU and UC Remains Near the Lowest Point in
More Than 30 Years. Retrieved from http://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/state-spending-per-student-at-csu-and-uc-
remains-near-the-lowest-point-in-more-than-30-years/ on November 17, 2015.
8
California Department of Finance. (2015). California Budget 2015-16. Retrieved from http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/home.
php?selectedYear=2015-16 on November 20, 2015.
9
California Department of Finance. (2015). California Budget 2015-16. Retrieved from http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/home.
php?selectedYear=2015-16 on November 20, 2015.
10
Geiser, S. (2014). Back to the Future: Freshman Admissions at the University of California, 1994 to the Present and
Beyond. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/back-future-freshman-admissions-university-
california-1994-present-and-beyond on November 20, 2015.
11
Koseff, A. (2014). University of California steps up out-of-state recruiting. The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from http://
www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article2606325.html on August 3, 2015.
12
California State University Ofice of the Chancellor. (2015). California Faces a Degree Gap: CSU is the Solution. Retrieved
from http://blogs.calstate.edu/pa/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Enrollment.pdf on July 5, 2015.
13
Johnson, Hans. (2012). Defunding Higher Education: What are the Effects on College Enrollment? A report produced by
the Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf on October
12, 2015.
14
Murphy, K. (2015). University of California proposes a major enrollment expansion. Retrieved from http://www.
mercurynews.com/news/ci_29098147/uc-proposes-enrolling-10-000-more-state-students on November 11, 2015.
Endnotes

15
The State of California. (2015). California State Budget – 2015-2016. Retrieved from http://www.dof.ca.gov/documents/
FullBudgetSummary-2015.pdf on November 20, 2015.
16
Stiles, J., Hout, M. & Brady, H. (2012). California’s Economic Payoff: Investing in College Access & Completion. The
Campaign for College Opportunity. Retrieved from http://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Californias_
Economic_Payoff_Full_Report_FINAL.pdf on October 8, 2015.
17
Stiles, J., Hout, M. & Brady, H. (2012). California’s Economic Payoff: Investing in College Access & Completion. The
Campaign for College Opportunity. Retrieved from http://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Californias_
Economic_Payoff_Full_Report_FINAL.pdf on October 8, 2015.
18
Myers, D. (2012). California Futures: New Narratives for a Changing Society. Boom: A Journal of California, Vol. 2,
Number 2, pps 37–54. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/schools/price/research/popdynamics/pdf/2012_Myers_
CaliforniaFutures_Boom.pdf on October 12, 2015.
19
Johnson, H., Mejia, M., & Bohn, S. (2015). Will California Run Out of College Graduates? A report produced by the Public
Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1166 on November 20,
2015.
20
University of California Ofice of the President. (2015). Major Features of the California Master Plan for Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm on October 12, 2015.
21
University of California Ofice of the President. (2015). The California Master Plan for Higher Education in Perspective.
Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpperspective.htm on October 12, 2015.
22
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Ofice. (2015). First California Community College Bachelor’s Degree
Programs Receive Initial Approval from Board of Governors. Retrieved from http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/
Portals/0/DocDownloads/PressReleases/JAN2015/PR_4yrDegree-January-20-2015_inal.pdf on November 20, 2015.
23
Fall 2013 undergraduate enrollment estimate.
24
University of California Ofice of the President. (2015). The California Master Plan for Higher Education in Perspective.
Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpperspective.htm on October 12, 2015.
25
University of California Ofice of the President. (2014). Accountability Report 2015: Chapter 14 Honors and Rankings.
Retrieved from http://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/chapters/chapter-14.html on November 18, 2015.
26
California State University Ofice of the Chancellor. (2014). Student Academic Outreach Programs 2013-2014 Annual
Report. Retrieved from https://www.calstate.edu/SAS/documents/2013-14_OutreachReport.pdf on November 18, 2015.
27
Palomino, J. (2015). How foreign, out-of-state students pad UC’s shrinking budget. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved
from http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/How-foreign-out-of-state-students-pad-UC-s-6434407.php on
November 18, 2015.
28
Palomino, J. (2015). How foreign, out-of-state students pad UC’s shrinking budget. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved
from http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/How-foreign-out-of-state-students-pad-UC-s-6434407.php on
November 18, 2015.
29
Geiser, S. 2014.
30
Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools. (2013). Impact of the New Freshman Eligibility Policy at the University
of California A Report to the Regents of the University of California. Retrieved from http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/
committees/boars/Nov52013BOARSReporttoRegents-Final.pdf on November 7, 2015.

31
University of California Ofice of the President. (2002). University of California Eligibility in the Local Context Program
Evaluation Report. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/news/cr/report02.pdf on November 7, 2015.
32
Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) (2001). The Use of Admissions Tests by the University of
California. Retrieved from http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/admissionstests.pdf on November 18,
2015.
33
Columbia Broadcasting System. (2011). UC To Expand Individualized Review Of Applications. Retrieved from http://
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/uc-to-expand-individualized-review-of-applications/ on November 10, 2015.
34
University of California Ofice of the President. (2015). Freshman Admissions. Retrieved from http://admission.
universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/freshman/minimum-requirements/index.html on July 30, 2015.
35
The College Board. (2014). 10 Years of Advanced Placement Exam Data Show Signiicant Gains in Access and Success;
Areas for Improvement. Retrieved from https://www.collegeboard.org/releases/2014/class-2013-advanced-placement-
results-announced on October 16, 2015.
36
Geiser, S. & Santelices, V. (2004). The Role of Advanced Placement and Honors Courses in College Admissions. Retrieved
from http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/iles/shared/publications/docs/ROP.Geiser.4.04.pdf on November 18,
2015.
37
University of California Ofice of the President. (2015). University of California Admissions: California Residents.
Retrieved from http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/index.html on September 29,
2015.
38
Note the CSU does not provide data on California resident admissions years prior to 2011.
39
As we do not know how many of these students are eligible for admission, please interpret the applicant/admit gap with
caution.
40
University of California Ofice of the President.
41
Students receive a GPA bump for taking AP classes.
42
University of California Ofice of the President. (2015). Admissions. Retrieved from http://admission.universityofcalifornia.
edu/counselors/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index.html on November 18, 2015.
43
PowerScore. (2015). The Old SAT vs. The New SAT. Retrieved from http://www.powerscore.com/sat/help/sat_oldvsnew.
cfm on November 18, 2015.
44
45
46
Koseff, A. (2014). University of California steps up out-of-state recruiting. The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from http://
www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article2606325.html on October 23, 2015.
47
California State Assembly Budget Report (May 13 2015). Retrieved from http://abgt.assembly.ca.gov/sites/abgt.
assembly.ca.gov/iles/UC%20May%2013%20Agenda.pdf on July 25, 2015.
48
Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) (2001). The Use of Admissions Tests by the University of
California. Retrieved from http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/admissionstests.pdf on November 18,
2015.

Access Denied Rising Selectivity At California S Public Universities

Access Denied Rising Selectivity At California S Public Universities

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Access Denied Rising Selectivity At California S Public Universities

Similar to Access Denied Rising Selectivity At California S Public Universities (20)

More from Justin Knight

More from Justin Knight (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Access Denied Rising Selectivity At California S Public Universities